Strolling down the avenue

The scarcity of reasonable arguments against amending the Racial Discrimination Act is emerging as an acute problem for the defenders of the status quo.

Understandably, there has been no serious attempt to argue for the retention of the subjective terms offend, insult and humiliate in 18C.

It is difficult to see how the human rights establishment can sustain its attack on George Brandis’s “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” test.

Even the erudite Tim Southphommasane, appears stumped on this one. The strongest line the Race Discrimination Commissioner can muster in his latest speech is that “there are a number of questions worth posing” about the ordinary reasonable Australian:

Who exactly is this person? What kind of cultural background does this person have? Is this person someone who embraces cultural diversity, or someone who is skeptical of it? Does this person have prejudicial thoughts about some or all ethnic minority groups?

On the subject of things about which there are questions worth posing, allow me to visit Tim’s assertion that:

One could be abused by co-workers, customers or strangers in public as a “filthy coon”, “stupid boong”, “slit-eyed gook”, “shifty Jew”, “sand-nigger” or “Arab terrorist”. But unless such abuse is capable of inciting a third party, the proposed law would leave the target without an avenue for seeking redress.

What no avenues? Even if we assume Tim is right about the amendments, and I’m not sure he is, the area of offensive and abusive behaviour has more legislative boulevards than Paris. Try these for a start:

* The anti-bullying amendments to the Fair Work Act that came into effect on January * *

* Legislation prohibiting offensive language in public. (Barry O’Farrell just upped the fines on that one in NSW by the way.)

* Section 471.12 of the Criminal Code which makes it a crime to use a postal or similar service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as offensive. The provision was successfully used in Monis v The Queen in a decision upheld by the High Court.

Doubtless Catallaxy readers more familiar with the statutory streetscape than I will be able to suggest further interesting strolls that might ease Tim’s anxiety.

102 Responses to Strolling down the avenue

Who exactly is this person? What kind of cultural background does this person have? Is this person someone who embraces cultural diversity, or someone who is skeptical of it? Does this person have prejudicial thoughts about some or all ethnic minority groups?

Who exactly is this person? What kind of cultural background does this person have? Is this person someone who embraces cultural diversity, or someone who is skeptical of it? Does this person have prejudicial thoughts about some or all ethnic minority groups?

Mission accomplished. Divide people into tribes and emphasise their differences, rather than their common humanity.

One could be abused by co-workers, customers or strangers in public as a “filthy coon”, “stupid boong”, “slit-eyed gook”, “shifty Jew”, “sand-nigger” or “Arab terrorist”. But unless such abuse is capable of inciting a third party, the proposed law would leave the target without an avenue for seeking redress.

Why does every avenue for seeking redress need to be legal? Not everything that offends the community needs to be illegal. The community is quite capable of enforcing community behavioural standards without requiring the intervention of the legal system, surely. You can’t legislate for good manners.

In the case of both the highly publicised Melbourne and Gold Coast racist rants caught on video tape, it was the shame and humiliation of being seen by the community as a boorish and racist bigot that came across as a bigger deterrent than the community corrections order or good behaviour bond likely to be issued from the bench.

Well, if “calling people names should be illegal” is all they’ve got, they haven’t got much.

People get called all sorts of names all the time. Why, it has even been known to happen right here at the Cat! Shocking, eh?

What’s more, there are lots of nasty names that people can be called which have nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion. I suppose their reaction to that would be that the other names should be outlawed as well.

They seem to conceptualise society as a sort of gigantic school playground, where wise teachers like themselves must always be on hand to stop the kiddies from calling each other names. Pathetic.

Twenty-first century totalitarians like Southphommasane are terrified of talk of “ordinary reasonable Australians” because it tells us much about who he and his milieu really are: extremists who are so far from society’s mainstream they don’t come in contact with ordinary people who vote — and who voted against the leftist rabble who hijacked government between 2007 and 2013, first under the Trojan horse of a Labor liar pretending he was a conservative, then under a communist using the Obama method (first female prime minister) to excuse her incompetence. Southphommasane has no voting constituency and doesn’t win any arguments in the mainstream, which despises him and his ilk. Too many of the people surrounding Brandis and the LNP forget, misunderstand or wilfully ignore that fact.

Victoria also has anti-bullying legislation, known as Brodie’s Law, which commenced in June 2011 and made serious bullying a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

Brodie’s Law applies to all forms of serious bullying, including physical bullying, psychological bullying, verbal bullying and cyberbullying. Brodie’s Law applies to bullying occurring anywhere in the community, such as workplaces, schools, sporting clubs and on the internet including email or social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

In the case of the Frankston bus rant people, it seems bizarre to me and reflective of our current obsessions that everyone was OMG upset about the supposed racist nature of the language than the sheer abusive and menacing behaviour of the aggressors.

They were actually convicted of “threatening to inflict serious injury, criminal damage, behaving in an insulting manner, behaving in an indecent manner and behaviour in an offensive manner”

The media spins it as “turned on the girl for singing in a foreign language” when my recollection of the longest version of the video (“tape”, very quaint Matt), that the main thug turned on them for singing while he was on the phone and made several threatening remarks before he came out with the “speak English” bit. Every bit as bad, but why the emphasis on the racist angle over the threats of violence?

One could be abused by co-workers, customers or strangers in public as a “filthy coon”, “stupid boong”, “slit-eyed gook”, “shifty Jew”, “sand-nigger” or “Arab terrorist”. But unless such abuse is capable of inciting a third party, the proposed law would leave the target without an avenue for seeking redress.

Barrister and former politician Neil Brown QC suggests trial by jury instead of judge alone: “… who better to determine whether an act offended community standards than the community itself, by way of a jury? …” (The Australian today).

Southphommasane has no voting constituency and doesn’t win any arguments in the mainstream, which despises him and his ilk. Too many of the people surrounding Brandis and the LNP forget, misunderstand or wilfully ignore that fact.

One could be abused by co-workers, customers or strangers in public as a “filthy coon”, “stupid boong”, “slit-eyed gook”, “shifty Jew”, “sand-nigger” or “Arab terrorist”.

- Cant help but notice they left out the term “white cunt” or “Gaijin” or “Kuffar”. As a white Australian, I have been called all of these terms in my own country. Apparently according to this Southphommasane character, racist abuse and section 18C should only be used to protect minorities. Ah…looking so forward to the tribalisation of Australia and the destruction of the egality which was once so inherent to our great nation.

I agree, for what it’s worth.
An attitude is emerging of ‘let’s not go to extremes’ and ‘let’s find a happy medium’ as if government restrictions are the default position and loosening those restrictions is granting a generous concession.

What no avenues? Even if we assume Tim is right about the amendments, and I’m not sure he is, the area of offensive and abusive behaviour has more legislative boulevards than Paris.

Wow, I notice Tim S was silent when that disgraceful piece of slime was awarded damages by the IR commission when dismissed for scratching swastikas on the freezer of a Jewish owned business a few years back.

Yes a government agency ensured the slimebag’s employer had to pay him damages for sacking him for what we now hear is the type of unacceptable “hate speech” which revoking 18C will unleash.

The left have no shame. They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Virtually every organisation has an anti-discrimination / bullying / harassment policy these days. Use of such language from a co-worker would justify an immediate trip to your boss and the HR Department and potentially disciplinary action or dismissal for the offender. No reputable employer wants this sort of stuff on the premises. In my small business, my customers can call me whatever they please because they’re, well, customers. And who cares what strangers in the street say? Really, who are these sad, fragile people?

Tim paints Australia as such a fascist hellhole it’s a wonder he hasn’t called for UN peace keepers to come in and save the oppressed.

Best he avoid the Pakistani Peacekeepers who weren’t even issued with ammunition during UNTAET, for fear that they’d shoot each other. Such was the animosity between members of the various different tribes.
Oh the irony of the condemnation directed at us.

Brodie’s Law applies to all forms of serious bullying, including physical bullying, psychological bullying, verbal bullying and cyberbullying

Sounds about as bad as the RDA. ‘Bullying’, like ‘racism’, is a very flexible concept in the eye of the receiver or other beholder. One person’s ‘bullying’ is another person’s ‘robust forthrightness’ and another person’s ‘free speech’. Physical or verbal ‘intimidation with threats etc’ is surely a police matter; why do we need anything else?

Given the oppression de jour is now ‘microaggression’ – it rather looks like large slabs of Australia will have to be turned into open prison camps to accommodate the vast numbers of ‘ordinary reasonable Australians’ who Tim and his fellow travellers would ping for ‘microaggresion’ on a daily basis.

Who exactly is this person? What kind of cultural background does this person have? Is this person someone who embraces cultural diversity, or someone who is skeptical of it? Does this person have prejudicial thoughts about some or all ethnic minority groups?

Translation = Free speech will only work in a community where I am allowed to determine who has it, and who doesn’t have it.

This is the fundamental lefty flaw; they can’t seem to grasp that equality before the law actually does involve it applying to everyone.

How come everyone of the left has dreadfully low self esteem,at the same time they feel an overwhelming need for government nannying??
If you know who and what you are deep inside yourself, what does it matter what anyone calls you, especially if they are not speaking the truth?
Leave freedom of speech alone!

The city of Madison hosted the 15th annual national White Privilege Conference ……..to discuss issues of white supremacy, social justice, education and the Tea Party.

Our first account comes from the breakout session titled Stories from the front lines of education: Confessions of a white, high school English teacher.

The facilitator said:

Teaching is a political act, and you can’t choose to be neutral. You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it,” Radersma said during the session. “And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn.”

Radersma also argued the first step is realizing that all white people are carrying the signs of oppression.

“Being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic. I will never be recovered by my alcoholism, to use the metaphor,” Radersma said. “I have to everyday wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply imbedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose everyday to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way.”

She argued that until white people admit they have a problem, they will not be able to fight against white privilege.

Good God. It’s times like this you start to wonder if the Yellowstone caldera isn’t in fact overdue for the Big Burp ??

Spiked Online has listed those who have demanded the UK press sign up to the Royal Charter on press regulation.
The list includes a few who made their names lampooning the Establishment but now part of it including all surviving members of the Monty Python team: Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, John Cleese and Michael Palin.

If someone calls you a shifty eyed boong or whatever and you don’t like it, why not just tell him to shove it up his arse? And if you’re really cranky ask him why his wife has such large hands and unusually prominent Adam’s Apple.

Most of the arguments for keeping s18c (or more accurately most of the counter arguments against the free speech argument for repealing 18c) tend to rely on a single premise – that the laws are designed to protect oppressed minorities against some sort of ruling majority.

They generally don’t say this explicitly but it’s fairly obvious with rebuttals such as “this will only protect the freedom of speech of middle aged, heterosexual white men”, like that Egyptian activist lady said on Q&A, or as our friend Waleed Aly put it ‘these are the whitest laws I’ve ever seen’.

Surely that argument itself, or at least some of the forms of it which are put very passionately, is in itself a breach of s18c, by offending, humiliating and insulting white men?

Why do we not push this point with the pro-censorship lefties? Eventually they will crack and argue that white middle aged men don’t need any protecting from racial discrimination, which will get back to the point about about oppressed minorities (presumably women, LGBTI community members, non white ethnic groups, non Christian religious groups etc) needing protection from the bigotry of the ruling majority (white middle aged men?)

Then get them to expound on the argument. OK – if that is the real intent, then amend the RDA to define which groups are ‘oppressed’ and which are the oppressors. Get them to state that discrimination against caucasians is ok but not against other ethnic groups.

state that unless they define the oppressor and the oppressed, they may be taken to court whenever they insult, offend or humiliate while middle aged heterosexual men as a community.

Then ask them to develop a set of rules for what happens if different oppressed groups insult each other (think Aboriginals calling gays ‘deviants’)

Either the whole stupid argument for keeping 18c will crumble or well have a great deal of fun with victimhood poker, or both.

Does this person have prejudicial thoughts about some or all ethnic minority groups?

Bless me Father, for I have sinned, I have had impure prejudicial thoughts about some or all ethnic minority groups. Didn’t say or do anything but these days thoughts noticing the differences is a sin according to the Left … what’s my penance?

Prejudicial: Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions . We mere mortals notice differences in others, it’s how we are geared; it’s one of our cognitive protection mechanisms but it doesn’t mean we automatically act on it, oh great moralizing, sanctimonious Lefties.

Another topic of discussion was how white people’s actions, like donating to charity or helping a family in need, are inherently racist. A white attendee of the conference told a story about how her family donated school supplies to one of her classmates when she was in first grade because the family could not afford them.

The receiving family had moved from India, according to the attendee. While she was happy to be helping when it happen years ago, she was now questioning her family’s motives.

“It was like ‘well why don’t you swoop in and save the day and give her all this stuff because we can afford to do that for them’ kind of mentality,” she said in the session.

Radersma agreed and said the family that was helped likely felt discriminated against.

I’m fairly sure that a lot of white people who voted for Obama the first time around did so out of slavery-guilt without for one minute stopping to think that “Hey, this guy’s practically a first-generation American (Kenyan dad); he’s about as much a descendant of slaves as I am.”

Curious that the same people like to ignore some obvious things about the two Secretaries of State who preceded Hilary Clinton, and that the Republicans, those evil racists who wage the eternal war on women…

a) Selected a black woman to act as Secretary of State under Bush II (some of them even wanted her to be Romney’s running mate).
b) Selected a woman married to a Native American and with a special-needs child and a pregnant teenage daughter to be McCain’s VP running mate (only for muckraking by Democrats to drive her from public office).
c) Accepted a black man’s nomination to the Presidential Primaries (until muckraking by Democrats destroyed him).
d) Gave the Evil Bushitler’s Vice President no flak whatsoever about his openly gay daughter and her girlfriend (whom she later married).

They are IMO completely, totally, utterly unhinged. Or maleficent. Or both.

It is difficult to see how the human rights establishment can sustain its attack on George Brandis’s “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” test.

For the better part, it seems safe to say that the conservative right is much aggrieved by sec. 18C in its current guise. Primarily in that an adverse ‘group’ reaction is sufficient to found liability. Wilfully avoided is the legislated caveat that this adverse reaction be ‘reasonable’. So yes, an adverse group reaction – whilst sufficient to found liability – must also be reasonable in the circumstances.

Should sec.18C be amended, we are left with an ‘ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community’ and the removal of ‘offence, insult and humiliation’. Being race-neutral, this fictional identity cannot be said to have the same culture, history and experience of racial prejudice as the complainant. In assessing the likelihood of physical harm to the complainant, its finer sensibilities will reflect those of the ‘wider Australian community’.

Good thing we’re not resident in in 1960s Australia …

In much the same vein that human rights are not dictated by the majority, the same is to be said of a ‘majority’ assessing the depth of emotional and/or physical abuse befalling a racial minority by virtue of racial abuse. History as taught as much, a case in point being the Japanese government’s almost infallible impotence in duly acknowledging their wartime treatment of both ‘comfort women’ and also prisoners of war.

The simple crux of the matter is that the ‘majority’ always has the propensity to get in wrong and we ought never to lose sight of that very real fact. It matters little whether we’re speaking of a community, a corporate organisation, an institution or even a country.

Indeed, in recent years we’ve all borne witness to the much publicised actions of the world’s largest religious institution – the Catholic Church – in having actively endeavoured towards covering up tens of thousands of cases of child sexual abuse, going so far as to both threaten and instigate legal action to limit compensatory damages to those internally known to have suffered actual abuse.

That’s what I most fear about the proposed changes to sec.18C, a situation where the majority is enable to exercise its unchecked and unfettered discretion in determining precisely how the marginalised are to be treated.

Really?
We are talking about ‘feelings’ not rape or other physical abuse.
Australians are not walking around giving death stares to anyone who looks slightly different, this isn’t the great moral issue of our time.
I don’t see non white Australians walking off the footpath when Aussies come the other way either.

Being race-neutral, this fictional identity cannot be said to have the same culture, history and experience of racial prejudice as the complainant.

Cannot be said not to, either.

I am not a lawyer, although most of my working life has been spent in what used to be called “blue collar” jobs. But even I am familiar with the legal concept of a reasonable person . I can’t believe someone calling himself a lawyer is being so obtuse about it.

I am not a lawyer, although most of my working life has been spent in what used to be called “blue collar” jobs. But even I am familiar with the legal concept of a reasonable person . I can’t believe someone calling himself a lawyer is being so obtuse about it.

Nothing obtuse in my assessment.

In its amended form, sec 18C makes specific mention of an ‘ordinary reasonable person in the Australian community‘. This individual – whose finer sensibilities as concerns racial prejudice will reflect that of an Australian majority – experiences the least amount of racially-based offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation. Yet, by some bizarre conservative twist of faith, he/she will set the standard on behalf of those much more likely to have had not only had those experiences, but also been disadvantaged in consequence.

Bluntly put, just how many white Australians can speak having not only experienced a degree of racial prejudice comparable to their minority counterparts, but also to have experienced serious social or economic disadvantage as a result. Certainly such individuals exist, but they have as much chance of forming the ‘majority’ as there ever being another D. Bradman.

To put it another way, imagine a country (Country A) whose citizens comprise of only two racial characteristics – white (99%) and blacks (1%) – where sec. 18C applies in its amended form. An ‘ordinary reasonable person in Country A’, being a composite of the entire populace, almost wholly reflect the white majority’s sensibilities as to the effects of racial prejudice on blacks. This has the effect of grossly diminishing the voice of the blacks in speaking up for themselves and tendering evidence as to their own experiences with regards to racial prejudice.

In Aly’s own words, ‘protection from racism becomes a gift from the majority’ – a rather poorly constructed one at that.

Teaching is a political act, and you can’t choose to be neutral. You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it,” Radersma said during the session. “And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn.”

She argued that until white people admit they have a problem, they will not be able to fight against white privilege.

And this is a typical example of how these people think and talk. It is bizarre, arrogant and totalitarian. It is actually unhinged. I teach but, according to Radersma, I cannot chose “to be neutral” and if I think I am I am a “pawn”. I am white, so apparently I have to admit I “have a problem” even if I don’t actually have a problem. At this point it may be worth checking who Radersma is:

Apparently a former high school teacher in both California and Colorado led a breakout session that was titled ‘Stories from the Front Lines of Education: Confessions of a White, High School English Teacher.’ Kim Radersma explained to the other educators and administrators how ‘being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic.’

At the link you can also read that “She’s also working on her Ph.D. in ‘critical whiteness studies’ at Brock University in Ontario”.

This is so f*cked up it is beyond belief. The “enlightened” here truly believe that they, and only they, see things clearly and everyone else, especially white middle aged males, cannot possibly see things from anyone else’s perspective.

At no time do these people ever provide reasons for why they can see the “truth” but I can’t, except for vague mumblings about race and “privilege”.

To put it another way, imagine a country (Country A) whose citizens comprise of only two racial characteristics – white (99%) and blacks (1%) – where sec. 18C applies in its amended form.

Yes, but BCL, why imagine such a country? It is a stupid f*cking argument. 18C is not going to operate in your imaginary country but in this country. As a consequence, your “imaginary country” and your argument are irrelevant. From the ABS:

“Multiculturalism plays a big part in who we are as a nation and we thank all community groups for their participation in the Census, and helping to create a brighter future for all Australians.”

I was called up for jury duty earlier this year and a glance around the room showed this diversity: male, female; young, middle aged and old; and a wide range of ethnic origins.

Even if 18C operated in your imaginary country, you also have to assume that most of the people in your imaginary country are racist and insensitive; otherwise, your argument disappears up its own fundament. It assumes that only minorities can understand the problems of being a minority. History demonstrates that these are stupid and invalid assumptions.

18C is racist and divisive for exactly the reasons it is supposed to counter.

It assumes that certain people are better able to judge the validity of speech because of their race or ethnic identity.

For the very simple purpose of highlighting that the ‘reasonable ordinary person’ is a composite of the populace. If you’re wondering what this means in practice, it’s simply that minorities are not and will not ever be given equal representation under a revised sec. 18C.

It assumes that certain people are better able to judge the validity of speech because of their race or ethnic identity.

No … what sec 18C assumes is that a reasonable ordinary person of the complainant’s minority group is best positioned to assess whether commentary or conduct has the effect of causing insult, offence, humiliation or intimidation in all the circumstances.

Good legislation, properly drafted, ought to leave very little to the imagination with respect to its proper interpretation and application. No, I do not consider the vast majority of Australians to be racially insensitive bigots, far from it. However, neither do I turn a blind eye to the seeming inability of many to grasp the complexities of racial prejudice.

A case in point is Bolt, a man we can thank for having served as a precursor to the current national debate as to whether free speech is a right to be qualified. This man penned a factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest article insinuating that the degree of racial prejudice likely to be encountered by any given Australian could somehow be assessed against a Dulux colour palette, the lighter the shade the lesser the prejudice.

Thankfully, not every Australian agrees with Bolt’s assessment … but a disturbingly high proportion have nonetheless proven themselves deeply ignorant in having regarded his article as being devoid of any racially abusive or prejudicial tones.

As importantly, it begs to be said that had Bolt been a better journalist, and not such a moronic dolt, he could easy have survived sec. 18C simply by having:

(i) acted in good faith; and
(ii) been fair and accurate in his reporting.

Bolt was neither, instead he did the journalistic equivalent of leaning into a microphone, parting his buttocks and letting rip a stream of BS (i.e. talking out of his arse, as is the man’s custom) that would tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of his following scratching their heads as to how a fair-skinned partial-Aborigine could ever be the subject of race-based discrimination.

In no uncertain terms, the ignorant prick acted as if the consummate biggot and then proceeded to whinge ad nauseam as to his supposed abrogation of free speech. As concerns the many findings against his article basically declaring the same to be drivel, he had only to note that a few inconsequential errors has been made.

Me: It assumes that certain people are better able to judge the validity of speech because of their race or ethnic identity.

BCL: No … what sec 18C assumes is that a reasonable ordinary person of the complainant’s minority group is best positioned to assess whether commentary or conduct has the effect of causing insult, offence, humiliation or intimidation in all the circumstances.

The very fact that you are unable to see that your statement is essentially identical to mine indicates your problem. You refer to a reasonable ordinary person of the complainant’s minority group” but claim that this does not mean that “certain people are better able to judge the validity of speech because of their race or ethnic identity“!

Me: Why imagine a country such as Country A?

BCL: For the very simple purpose of highlighting that the ‘reasonable ordinary person’ is a composite of the populace.

But 18C does not apply in Imaginary Country A; it applies in Australia. As a consequence, your Imaginary Country A, which has a 99% white, 1% black, population is utterly irrelevant. The country that 18C applies to has a considerable diversity of “races” and ethnic groups (as I argued by anecdote and reference). Your Imaginary Country A is also only useful if you assume that white people in that country are unable to understand the effects of racial abuse.

Most arguments for 18C assume that white middle aged males are unable to understand the effects of racial abuse, despite the fact that — surprise — many of us, including me, have experienced it. It assumes that only someone who has lived with a particular set of features can understand the impact and effects of those features.

In particular, BCL your assumptions mean that, were I to apply them, you cannot possibly understand me, because you cannot possibly have experienced the same sequence of events as me. Am I claiming that I am unique? Yes, and so is everyone else. But I am also saying — like Bolt — that what unites us is greater than what divides us.

18C is a law designed to encourage people to focus on what divides them. And it is designed to settle arguments and disputes by pitting the law against individuals and using the apparatus of the state to shut down discussion. It is totalitarian; it is an abuse of power; and those who support it support the oppression of their fellow Australians.

Over the last several days, the arguments of those supporting 18C have become increasingly feeble and irrational. You are now making arguments based on imaginary countries which bear no relationship to Australia. What next? Imaginary people?

BCL: No … what sec 18C assumes is that a reasonable ordinary person of the complainant’s minority group is best positioned to assess whether commentary or conduct has the effect of causing insult, offence, humiliation or intimidation in all the circumstances.

Here is the stupidity of this argument…

I taught a class yesterday. The breakdown of the class was: 25% Australian*, 25% French, 25% African and 25% Venezuelan.

Suppose the Venezuelan has a go at the Frenchie: “A froggie would say that”.

Who constitutes “a reasonable person of the complainant’s minority group”? A French person? But, no, that’s a nationality. And, if they were anglo-saxon, they are not in a minority, although the French in Australia are a minority. But if they were dark skinned, they would be in an “appropriate” minority group. But being dark skinned, and being in an “appropriate” minority group, wouldn’t necessarily give insight in the “offence” of being called a “froggie”…

* The only individual whose background I am unsure about is…the one I have identified as Australian. Most of the class are Australian residents (not all people were in class yesterday). And that pretty much sums it up for 18C.

“You refer to a reasonable ordinary person of the complainant’s minority group” but claim that this does not mean that “certain people are better able to judge the validity of speech because of their race or ethnic identity“!”

The only person who can authoritatively and conclusively judge the validity of speech is a judge or jury member, those who are both tasked and empowered with providing a final and binding ruling. With respect to these individuals, background is completely irrelevant provided that they are qualified and further able to interpret and apply the law with the utmost impartiality.

In contrast, the persons best positioned to comment on whether speech has the capacity to cause insult, offence, humiliation or intimidation – vis a vis sec. 18C in its current guise – are ‘ordinary reasonable persons’ of the same race, colour or national or ethnic origin as those affected.

In having experienced racial discrimination, no doubt you would be able to empathise with minorities having suffered the same. However, empathy alone is not sufficient to imbue you with the racial identity of an entirely separate group of people. After all, you’re lacking their history, their culture, their religion … namely the very shared experiences that contribute to not only their identity as a people but also the social treatment and status accorded to them . As a result, there is every chance that you will not be in a position to either adequately comprehend or appreciate racial prejudice as experienced through their eyes.

As most African-Americans will quite rightly attest to, it’s a perfectly understandable proposition that any person not having their history will ever fully grasp the weight of being called a ‘nigger’ – not merely what the term signifies as a racial slur, but the catastrophic failure of humanity that gave rise to its use. Much the same is true for Jews, who only in recent living history were made to suffer in a manner that both defies contemplation and further diminishes humanity.

Unless possessed of the qualities of either an angel or a saint, the simple truth is most of us will fail to understand and that’s OK. Sometimes ‘not getting the point’ when it comes to another man’s experiences is ‘getting the point’.

And lastly, I have encountered racial prejudice as well as a privileged white male in Australia. Whilst hurt and upset, I’ve never once been disadvantaged as a result of certain persons publicly referring to me in derogatory terms or otherwise belittling my Danish heritage. Indeed, at no point can I even concede of an instance where my social or economic standing has been adversely affected, nor my reputation in the wider community.

Moreover, not once have I ever been naive or conceited enough to equate such slurs – especially where proffered by minorities in a 1st world developed country boasting a predominantly white population) – as having the same gravitas as abo, ape, blackie, boong, chink, ching chong, curry muncher, dot-head, golliwog, gook, gyppo, dune coon, haji, jigaboo, jihad joe, nigger, sand nigger, paki, porch monkey, raghead, towelhead etc etc.

If you felt otherwise as a result of your own experiences, then I simply don’t believe you to be a reasonable man.

RE: Australia’s Cultural Diversity & Country A

Yes, Australia is not just racially diverse but since the abolishment of the White Australia Policy has demonstrated a growing commitment to diversity. It’s this very commitment that led to the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act and both an acknowledgement and appreciation of differences in religion, ethnicity, nationality and culture.

But, the fact remains that in the composite that is an ‘ordinary reasonable person in the Australian community’, the majority (white Anglo-Saxons) and the numerous minorities do not have equal standing. White sensibilities as to the propriety of ‘community standards’ prevail over all other, black, brown, yellow … what have you. That is the very simple and singular point sought to be made via the fictional Country A.

However, sec. 18C in its current guise permits a court to take into account the depth and degree of disadvantage suffered by a minority by way of racial prejudice. In this regard, racial slurs are properly construed in an entirely different light from offensive language with no racial-context (e.g. prick, bastard, wanker, arse-hole, dickhead etc).

Perhaps you do not realise or appreciate as much, but words such as boong, coon, nigger, gook and even ‘ape’ are possessed of both a deplorable history and an unmistakable power. They not only serve to ‘hurt and offend feelings’, but also to inspire ridicule, contempt, derision, disrespect, suspicion and worse towards entire ‘groups of people’. In doing so, they have a proven track record in having been utilised to great effect in causing actual disadvantage (social, political and economic) to minorities.

So, on that note, the current sec. 18C does indeed allow for a minority group to put forward evidence of ‘disadvantage’ in establishing why certain speech is liable to cause offence.

You continue to link “community standards” to skin colour. In your attempt to criminalise various kinds of speech, you practise the very racism you condemn.

Wrong again.

What I am attempting to do is demonstrate that, in the concept of a ‘reasonable ordinary person in the Australian community’, all members of the Australian community are not afforded legal weight. As I’ve already stated, a disturbing portion of the Australian community side with Bolt in being utterly ignorant as to the complexities and nuances of racial bias, believing there to be nothing wrong with linking skin-colour alone to the degree and likelihood of an Australian citizen experiencing racial prejudice. In a similar vein, most of those same muppets would think it appropriate to caricature blacks as either golliwogs or persons with an unerring propensity for consuming vast quantities of watermelon and fried chicken.

So yes, from that perspective I don’t believe a ‘reasonable ordinary person in the Australian community’ to be best qualified to assess whether a given minority is ‘reasonable’ in being offended by allegedly bigoted material.

What I am attempting to do is demonstrate that, in the concept of a ‘reasonable ordinary person in the Australian community’, all members of the Australian community are not afforded legal equal weight.

” One could be abused by co-workers, customers or strangers in public as a “filthy coon”, “stupid boong”, “slit-eyed gook”, “shifty Jew”, “sand-nigger” or “Arab terrorist”. But unless such abuse is capable of inciting a third party, the proposed law would leave the target without an avenue for seeking redress.”

This is true but its also true that expressions like “filthy b#stard”, “slit-eyed M#ther F#cker” “shifty #rsehole” would also not on the face of it, be actionable if they were not meant racially, even though they are at least as objectionable and as offensive. Which of course emphasizes the idiocy of 18c – certain types of offence giving is proscribed. Other types of offence giving is not. Where should the line be drawn and why is racial vilification worse than other types of vilification? The truth is that this legislation is simply pandering to the obsessions of the left.

In this regard, racial slurs are properly construed in an entirely different light from offensive language with no racial-context (e.g. prick, bastard, wanker, arse-hole, dickhead etc).

Bullshit. What about the white residents or cops in Moree and Walgett who get called “white cu*ts”?

As I’ve already stated, a disturbing portion of the Australian community side with Bolt in being utterly ignorant as to the complexities and nuances of racial bias

No. They are right, you are wrong. What’s more, we are a parliamentary democracy. We elected a government who promised change.

Bolt was wrong about someone’s grandparent’s ancestry, however his argument was correct. People who are less than half Aboriginal from urbanised backgrounds who have been treated as white until they self identify, taking scholarships and prizes meant for disadvantaged aborigines are taking the piss.

This offends you because you think regulating employment and admissions on racial grounds is a good idea. You do not believe in merit, and seek to rederess the wrongs of the past by punishing people who likely hold entirely liberal, tolerant values.

You are the worst form of regressive, using collective punishment to offer a non-solution.

What I am attempting to do is demonstrate that, in the concept of a ‘reasonable ordinary person in the Australian community’, all members of the Australian community are not afforded equal weight.

Wrong again. You don’t want “all members of the Australian community” to be afforded equal weight; you want the opinions — and it is opinions we are talking about here — of some members of the Australian community to be given much more weight than than the opinions of others.

And you have a habit of just making stuff up:

In a similar vein, most of those same muppets would think it appropriate to caricature blacks as either golliwogs or persons with an unerring propensity for consuming vast quantities of watermelon and fried chicken.

There is no basis for this slur against fellow Australians.

Now, as you keep saying much the same thing over and over again, I’m off for a while.

“Bullshit. What about the white residents or cops in Moree and Walgett who get called “white cu*ts”?”

If aggrieved, they can apply for a hearing under sec. 18C, same as anyone else. The Racial Discrimination Act may be utilised by a person of ANY race, colour or national or ethnic origin. You seem to be under the impression that it can only be invoked by minority groups.

Also, it begs to be said that – in being police officers – they are more likely to issue a citation for offensive language and issue an immediate fine. Sure the beats the shit out of the lengthy application process any other individual would have to address.

“What’s more, we are a parliamentary democracy. We elected a government who promised change.”

And what precisely is your point?

Your implication appears to that a given opinion or ideology is automatically rendered ‘correct and preferable’ should it accurately reflect majority opinion.

If yes, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Once again matey, having already provided numerous examples, human rights are not dictated by the majority(same with notions of common decency) – you need simply ask an Aborigine who was once not only denied the right to vote, but also regarded as beneath human by the better part of the white majority.

As for Bolt being right … a pathetic excuse for both a human being and a journalist whose appeal and common sense can be likened to the contents of a toilet. Not only was he wrong about a certain complainant’s ancestry, he was also wrong as to the context and history behind several key life occurrences that served to both guide and determine the complaints’ right to self-identify as part-Aborigine:

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

BOLT: ”For many of these fair Aborigines, the choice to be Aboriginal can be considered almost arbitrary and intensely political, given how many of their ancestors are in fact Caucasian.”

BROMBERG: ”In relation to most of the individuals concerned, the assertion in the newspaper articles that the people dealt with chose to identify as Aboriginal have been substantially proven to be untrue. Nine of the 18 named … gave evidence. Each of them had been raised to identify as Aboriginal and had identified as such since childhood. None of them made a conscious or deliberate choice to identify as Aboriginal.”

BROMBERG: ”Each of those assertions was erroneous. Mr Bolt accepted that they were wrong because they were exaggerated. One of the positions that Mr Bolt claimed Ms Heiss had won as a ‘plum job’ was a voluntary unpaid position. The other two positions were not reserved for Aboriginal people but were positions for which Aboriginal people were encouraged to apply.”

BROMBERG: ”That statement is factually inaccurate because Ms Cole’s Aboriginal grandmother also raised Ms Cole and was highly influential in Ms Cole’s identification as an Aboriginal.”

BOLT: ”[Ms Cole] rarely saw her part-Aboriginal father.”

BROMBERG: ”That statement is factually incorrect. Ms Cole’s father was Aboriginal and had been a part of her life until she was six years old. Ms Cole later lived with her father for a year whilst growing up.”

BOLT: ”The very pale Professor Larissa Behrendt, who may have been raised by her white mother but today, as a professional Aborigine, is chairman of our biggest taxpayer-funded Aboriginal television service.”

BROMBERG: ”The factual assertions made were erroneous. Professor Behrendt’s Aboriginal father did not separate from her mother until Professor Behrendt was about 15 years old. Her father was always part of the family during her upbringing, even after that separation.”

BOLT: ”Larissa Behrendt has also worked as a professional Aborigine ever since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking almost as German as her father … But which people are ‘yours’, exactly, mein liebchen? And isn’t it bizarre to demand laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?”

BROMBERG: ”To her knowledge, there is no German descent on either her father or mother’s side of the family although she assumes that because of her father’s Germanic surname, there may have been some German descent.

Her paternal grandfather came to Australia from England. Mr Bolt also referred to her father as being white. Her father had dark skin.”

BOLT: ”Take the most prominent Yorta Yorta leaders – Melbourne University academic Wayne Atkinson and Victorian Traditional Owners Land Justice Group co-chair Graham Atkinson. Both are Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman.

”How can Graham Atkinson be co-chair of the Victorian Traditional Owners Land Justice Group when his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman?”

BROMBERG: ”The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect. The Atkinsons’ parents are both Aboriginal as are all four of their grandparents and all of their great grandparents other than one who is the Indian great-grandfather that Mr Bolt referred to in the article.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

A veritable skidmark of a human being was found in a court of law to not only have been grossly factually inaccurate (i.e. the little shit lied through his teeth), but also lacking good faith (i.e. intellectually dishonest and with a ‘questionable’ agenda).

Perhaps as a testament to karma and the concept of ‘what goes around comes around‘, we have all borne witness to what transpired when, on a Q&A Program, Bolt was unfairly accused by Professor Langton of having racially abused another fair-skinned Aborigine – Misty Jenkins.

Poor little Bolty – the man received naught but a whiff of his own medicine and was instantly insulted and offended (ohh … such a sensitive man for a hard-line conservative). The guy folded like a little bitch and immediately began complaining of his hurt and injured feelings. I mean, woe betide the Racial Discrimination Act and overly-sensitive minorities but blessed is the Defamation Act.

Not just an incompetent journalist and a pathetic excuse for a human being in a position of responsibility (i.e. an influential broadcaster), but a Grade A hypocrite to boot. All stunning accolades with which to boost a man’s credentials, provided you are aiming for a ‘Douchebag of the Universe’ Award.

And yet, it’s people like you who tout Bolt as the martyrs of conservative right, as people to be admired, revered, emulated and supported.

The man’s comments are about as welcome to informed, reasoned, rational and civil debate as a Grim Reaper costume in the palliative care unit of a childrens’ medical ward. It truly does speak volumes about the nature of his followers …

“What’s more, we are a parliamentary democracy. We elected a government who promised change.”

And what precisely is your point?

Your implication appears to that a given opinion or ideology is automatically rendered ‘correct and preferable’ should it accurately reflect majority opinion.

If yes, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

You don’t respect natural rights or mob rule. What do you respect? The grievance industry! What the leftist elites tell people what their rights are. Truly sickening. Born to rule leftists.

As for Bolt being right … a pathetic excuse for both a human being and a journalist whose appeal and common sense can be likened to the contents of a toilet. Not only was he wrong about a certain complainant’s ancestry, he was also wrong as to the context and history behind several key life occurrences that served to both guide and determine the complaints’ right to self-identify as part-Aborigine:

I hope you get sued or disbarred. Only as a teaching moment, for your own good and moral development.

No. He was right about everything and his error was effectively a transliteration error. Bromberg found him guilty because he upset the scamming spivs and called bullshit on their ways.

“Wrong again. You don’t want “all members of the Australian community” to be afforded equal weight; you want the opinions — and it is opinions we are talking about here — of some members of the Australian community to be given much more weight than than the opinions of others.”

Of for fuck’s sake … if you’re aiming for ignorance then you’re not merely soaring but have now reached the stratosphere and shall soon be in orbit.

(a) If you tell an aggrieved black man whether he should or should not ‘reasonably’ be offended upon being called a nigger then you are offering an ‘opinion’.

(b) If the aggrieved black man proceeds to actually tell you how he feels, truthfully and absent any exaggeration/hyperbole, then he is offering a ‘factual narrative’.

Please tell me that you can see the distinction. If not, I may have to seek the services of an Early Childhood Expert with whom to establish a suitable narrative for a child.

OK … more hypothetical it is then.

Picture an African American soldier who fought in either the first or second world war. His enlistment is voluntary and, despite having valiantly risked life and limb for country, he continues to be treated as if a second rate citizen both at home and abroad. Racial divisions are rife and, moreover, segregation an enforced policy.

He returns home, jacket unadorned with medals due to a conscious failure to acknowledge his numerous acts of heroism only to be once again called a ‘nigger’ repeatedly and forcibly segregated at water fountains, in restaurants and on public transport. Even his educational options are severely curtailed by virtue of the segregation policy. He’s broken both physically and psychologically in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

And yet, you still believe yourself qualified to assess the degree of insult, offence, humiliation and intimidation felt by this man by virtue of racial bigotry??

If dealing with ‘racial slurs’ alone, are you the one qualified to assess the degree of harm caused by words such as ape, boogie, buffie, burrhead, coon, eggplant, fuzzy, golliwog, kaffir, mosshead, quashie, porch monkey, powderburn …. and on and on and on.

Whilst you may be able to empathise, any comment you offer as to how he should or should not feel towards a given act of alleged bigotry is opinion. Why wouldn’t it be? Ask the man himself what he offers in return will be a factual narrative.

As for your opinion as to how the man ought or ought not to feel, he’d be well entitled to tell you to shove it where the sun don’t shine.

I got this from a friend today (who is Chinese) via whatsapp “Last night I had dinner with my mum, she says she doesn’t like Westerners, they’re too open minded, not family oriented and like freedom”. One wonders if an Anglo-Saxon would get away with such thoughts about an other ethnic group? No need to be offended, it was her opinion.

This man penned a factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest article insinuating that the degree of racial prejudice likely to be encountered by any given Australian could somehow be assessed against a Dulux colour palette, the lighter the shade the lesser the prejudice.

You really are a prize dickhead BCL. Bolt never insinuated that at all.

Nevertheless, in one aspect the assertion is correct. How the fuck can a person be subject to racial predjudice for their ‘aboriginality’ if they are white?

(b) If the aggrieved black man proceeds to actually tell you how he feels, truthfully and absent any exaggeration/hyperbole, then he is offering a ‘factual narrative’.

You claim to be a lawyer and you call that a ‘factual narrative’? ‘Facts’ are statements which can be independently verified. There is no way of verifying that what he says is actually true. ‘Feelings’ are internal and cannot be observed. You qualify your statement with the rider ‘truthfully and absent any exaggeration/hyperbole’. But why should I accept that this is the case? Black people don’t lie? Or black people don’t lie when talking about racism?

If not, I may have to seek the services of an Early Childhood Expert with whom to establish a suitable narrative for a child.

Ha, ha. Very droll.

But, alas, you have insulted and offended me, so you can now be 18C’ed. I ‘truthfully and absent any exaggeration/hyperbole’ state that I have been deeply and profoundly injured and abused; I can’t sleep; I have trouble finding the motivation to do things I used to do; I used to enjoy reading the Cat but it has been polluted by some guy who wants to control what people can say…

OK … more hypothetical it is then.

No, it isn’t. Pack up your hypothetical and imaginary people and put them away. 18C operates in the real world and it affects real people, including me, so you are just wasting your time coming up with your “hypotheticals” and “imaginaries”.

He’s broken both physically and psychologically in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

How do you know what I can or cannot imagine? You are making some fairly hefty assumptions about my experiences based on the very little information available in my posts. For instance, I may have spent time — oh, I don’t know — in a South American country where white people were the minority, where I was often the only white person, and where I had only a limited ability to speak the major dialect. That’s a possibility. Now, if true, it might mean I might be able to imagine more than you seem to think.

The major problem with 18C is that it makes us all wayward children; children who simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing; or imagine the impacts of our deeds and actions on others.

I think better of other Australians than that. But apparently you do not.

“Nevertheless, in one aspect the assertion is correct. How the fuck can a person be subject to racial predjudice for their ‘aboriginality’ if they are white?”

Oh look Johanna, another gerbil … perhaps the two of you ought to get together and go bowling. Always nice to meet another conservative cretin of the same creed and colour, innit?

Jupes, in spite of their fair skin the individuals concerned were part-Aborigine and they identified as such from a very young age. In other words, they were honest about their racial heritage and at no point sought to pass themselves off as being wholly white Anglo-Saxon members of the Australian community. Yes, this would’ve ostensibly lessened the likelihood of racial prejudice, but it would mean being dishonest to themselves, their community, their culture. their history … their very identity as individuals.

Christ .. maybe the fictional politician Bulworth was right in the movie of his own namesake. Perhaps we should simply all fuck one another to the point of achieving the same colour. Maybe then idiots of your ilk would no longer be so deeply constrained by a failure to understand and appreciate difference and diversity between human beings.

Talk about aspiring to stupendous heights of ignorance, it beggars belief that certain individuals within the Cat crowd aren’t in orbit.

Excellent work, SOG. Now please change your pseudonym to something that indicates you have self-esteem that’s higher than a snake’s arsehole and that you are not a leftist basket case like the retard you are arguing with.

Christ .. maybe the fictional politician Bulworth was right in the movie of his own namesake. Perhaps we should simply all fuck one another to the point of achieving the same colour. Maybe then idiots of your ilk would no longer be so deeply constrained by a failure to understand and appreciate difference and diversity between human beings.

We don’t need that to treat people equally. We’re more equal than others in terms of intellect and being righteous individuals than lefties, it seems.

I got this from a friend today (who is Chinese) via whatsapp “Last night I had dinner with my mum, she says she doesn’t like Westerners, they’re too open minded, not family oriented and like freedom”. One wonders if an Anglo-Saxon would get away with such thoughts about an other ethnic group? No need to be offended, it was her opinion.

As Bob Dylan sang, “If my thought-dreams could be seen, they’d put my head in a guillotine” . We haven’t come to that yet, but we won’t be far off it if wannabe totalitarians like BCL and Tim S. continue to have their way.

nic, I’ve heard many such things said to my face about Westerners by Asians. Doesn’t bother me – I like the bigots to show themselves openly and I’m tolerant of people’s opinions.

That’s the thing:
The most tolerant people are the least easily-offended.
The least tolerant are inevitably the most easily-offended.

A tolerant society does not draft laws that empower the most intolerant over the others.

A tolerant society does not draft laws that empower the most intolerant over the others.

Quite.

Tolerance has a limit. We can tolerate the intolerance of the bigots so long as they limit themselves to words. When they seek to impose their bigoted views on others, physically or legally, we’ve reached the limit and should no longer tolerate them.

There is strong legal distinction to be made between a ‘factual narrative’ and ‘facts’. As you rightly stated, facts ought to be capable of independent verification. However, in assessing ‘offence’ the court under the current sec. 18C, the court will invariably consider the complainant’s testimony (aka evidentiary statement) in assessing the how, why and whether the speech in question allegedly caused insult, offence or humiliation.

And just what form will this testimony take?

A ‘factual narrative’. Yes, a f-a-c-t-u-a-l n-a-r-r-a-t-i-v-e.

Altogether now, sound it out … work hard on both pronunciation and enunciation.

FACTUAL NARRATIVE – FACTUAL NARRATIVE – FACTUAL NARRATIVE

Under oath, the complainant will put forth a detailed statement of not only whether the speech caused offence, but also the social, cultural and historical basis for why and how it may be properly regarded as racially-biased.

It is there up to the judge to decide whether, in all the circumstances, a reasonable ordinary person of the complainant’s colour, race, ethnic or national origin is likely to have been offended.

As for making a determining as to whether the complainant is lying or not, not for you to decide SenileOldMan. That role is reserved exclusively for the judge and/or jury who are to take into account all the circumstances of the case alongside established statutory and/or common law rules as to the interpretation and application of the law to the evidence at hand.

Yes, sec. 18C calls for an assessment or otherwise as to an emotional state of mind – which cannot be visualised or presented as irrefutable fact with any real degree of certainty. BUT, major qualifier here, any person with even a modicum of sense would be inclined to lend greater weight to the evidence presented by the aggrieved party, as distinct from an outsider who – at best – makes an educated guess.

For instance, I may have spent time — oh, I don’t know — in a South American country where white people were the minority, where I was often the only white person, and where I had only a limited ability to speak the major dialect. That’s a possibility. Now, if true, it might mean I might be able to imagine more than you seem to think.

Brilliant SenileOldMan … there are very few people I know whose brief stint in a foreign country, coupled with sporadic and/or intermittent bouts of racism, renders them an expert on the impact of racial prejudice as it affects every other individual of a differing colour, race, ethnicity or nationality on the face of the planet.

Makes me wonder why I spent 5 years in law school, could’ve walked out a bona fide expert in under a week.

Irrespective of how much racism you as an individual have experienced, in no means does it qualify you to comment on how it impacts a person in a differing group with any authority. The very best you can do is empathise and even that is a form of hypothesising and/or speculation.

Racial prejudice manifests itself in infinitely different forms depending on the group affected such that experience of the same is not homogenous, thereby disallowing persons to suitably gauge its emotional impact on others.

Irrespective of how much racism you as an individual have experienced, in no means does it qualify you to comment on how it impacts a person in a differing group with any authority. The very best you can do is empathise and even that is a form of hypothesising and/or speculation.

How exactly does a judge or jury then get inside the mind of our dear “victim”?

It should also be pointed out that not even attempting to read people’s minds is one of the most important precepts of the Common Law. It is constantly being eroded by sleazy barristers and people who try to increase the role of kangaroo courts like the HRC, but is a fundamentally sound principle.

That doesn’t mean that mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into account, but stops well short of presuming to enter into the brains of defendants.